Roman Legions vs. Japanese Samurais
- Thread starter BOTP
- Start date
Bugfatty300
Buddha Squirrel
I think European Knights vs Japanese Samurai is a better since they both existed durring the same time period and were counterparts to one another.
Tomoyo
Fate
One-on-one, the Samurai for sure.
Trjanic legions were amougn the most rough and tough troops the world has seen ever, period; even in one one one combat, they have a chance agiasnt the japanese samurai, for roman trainign in general was bent on being able to hover between one on one fighting, and formation fighting; I weill remind you all, that, unliek th emass media migth have you belive, the Roman army rarelly used "sheild wall" tactics; hence the reason why each trooper was givien 3 feet between him, and any other fighitng trooper; usch was for the optimal spacieng to allow each trooper to fight proficientlly agiasnt an opponent, while, if needed, beign able to recieve support from his buddies if in a pinch.
I reming you, that samurai use long swoards, and if anything, the Roman army was geared to take on such oppoenets, and the Trajanic era legionaries are the apex of this movemtn, winnign great victories agiasnt the european Kingdom- the Dacians- who used a weapon most similer to hwat wa sin the european arsenal at the time, to the japanese style swoard, and while the dacians were l;ackign in the armour department, it didtn particurlay matter in Roman tactics the amoutn of armour the opponent had; the general aim was to stab at the face, and while this would have been hmpered by the masks samurai wore, the high leval of training, combined with the sixer of the Roman galdius itself help to balence out this fact.
The reason the legions failed, i will remign you all, was NEVER because of a lack of martial profiency, but becaus einternal squables, and economic collpse made the legions too expensive to maintian, thus the empire was forced to look to cheaper alternatives
I reming you, that samurai use long swoards, and if anything, the Roman army was geared to take on such oppoenets, and the Trajanic era legionaries are the apex of this movemtn, winnign great victories agiasnt the european Kingdom- the Dacians- who used a weapon most similer to hwat wa sin the european arsenal at the time, to the japanese style swoard, and while the dacians were l;ackign in the armour department, it didtn particurlay matter in Roman tactics the amoutn of armour the opponent had; the general aim was to stab at the face, and while this would have been hmpered by the masks samurai wore, the high leval of training, combined with the sixer of the Roman galdius itself help to balence out this fact.
The reason the legions failed, i will remign you all, was NEVER because of a lack of martial profiency, but becaus einternal squables, and economic collpse made the legions too expensive to maintian, thus the empire was forced to look to cheaper alternatives
Xen said:
Wrong. Japanese coordination as a disciplined group would win the day, not their equipment. The japanese Katana is quite able to cut through a Lorica Segmentata and although the japanese lacquered armour isn't very well suited to keep the Gladius from perfurating it, both situations aren't even a close aproximation of one another. The Sengoku era Samurai equipment is far superior to anything the legions had. Also, their army command communication systems were fairly advanced. The Daimyo even used large flip-card signs set up in certain places to transmit complicated messages. Like a calender, they flip the cards over the top and a different one is visible.. Each flip-card has a pattern of holes. This pattern is read by the unit leaders on the manipular level, who then executes orders. The Roman-drilled Chop-hidebehindeshield-Chop Swordfight Style of Romans teached at the age of 20 can't be compared with Kendo teached from the age 4. If we go for a full-fledged Legion (with auxiliaries, cavalry, "artillery" and support) against a of a similar size Samurai army, the Japanese win hands down. Besides the technological advantage, Samurai also has a very long military tradition. They trained their whole life just to perfect their skills with a bow and sword as well as their discipline. Think about it, the Samurai cast was founded and devoted soley for warfare, while the majority of Roman Legionaires were recruited among the peasants and land owners of recently conquered territory.They got better equipment, are more capable individually and have superior cavalry and archers. Maybe samurais were sometimes undisciplined when it came to engaging combat, but they surely knew how to fight as a group.With the right conditions the samurai could certainly prevail. I think it would be a close match, however.
another issue is roman loyalty...as well as samurai unity...samurai especially, with incorporated and viable tactics and forces from all the samurai clans would be a supreme force to be reckonned with, as was unified roman groups...such an interesting hypothetical quarry... oh well, my vote is still with the samurai with no disrespect for those grungy effecient romans
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
The erroneous assumption some here (read : Xen) make is that samurai used only the Katana.
Samurai were proficient (perhaps not each individually, but a large group of samurai) with a vast array of weapons : polearms, the katana, even larger swords such as the no-dachi, bows (iirc not too far from the vaulted english longbows) and so forth. So to claim that the samurai would fail because legionaires were trained to handle swords is foolish at best.
It is, of course, even more foolish when you consider that (despite popular imagery carried by POST-FEUDAL Japan - ie, Japan after the samurai warriors had become samurai administrators) most late feudal japanese army were perfectly able and willing to use firearms, and, say what you will about the legions, firearms is one thing that would have caused them extensive problems.
In the end, both had enough strengths and weakness (roman organization vs japanese martial training) to make a match-up between any early/mid feudal japanesse army and top-level roman legions very, very, very even - the only thing I can promise you for such a fight would be a furious bloodbath with the winner paying their victory very, very, very, very dearly.
In the end it comes down to a simple factor of time position : samurais came later, which means that late-feudal samurai armies had gunpowder. Rome didn't. Given what's otherwise a very even match-up, the samurai being able to throw firearms in the mix would probably give them the win.
On the other hand, given that gunpowder effectively makes martial training a lot less effective, give both sides firearms and Rome carry the day - with gunpowder's japan having the best individual fighters become rather irrelevant, and Rome having the superior military machine gives them the decisive edge.
Samurai were proficient (perhaps not each individually, but a large group of samurai) with a vast array of weapons : polearms, the katana, even larger swords such as the no-dachi, bows (iirc not too far from the vaulted english longbows) and so forth. So to claim that the samurai would fail because legionaires were trained to handle swords is foolish at best.
It is, of course, even more foolish when you consider that (despite popular imagery carried by POST-FEUDAL Japan - ie, Japan after the samurai warriors had become samurai administrators) most late feudal japanese army were perfectly able and willing to use firearms, and, say what you will about the legions, firearms is one thing that would have caused them extensive problems.
In the end, both had enough strengths and weakness (roman organization vs japanese martial training) to make a match-up between any early/mid feudal japanesse army and top-level roman legions very, very, very even - the only thing I can promise you for such a fight would be a furious bloodbath with the winner paying their victory very, very, very, very dearly.
In the end it comes down to a simple factor of time position : samurais came later, which means that late-feudal samurai armies had gunpowder. Rome didn't. Given what's otherwise a very even match-up, the samurai being able to throw firearms in the mix would probably give them the win.
On the other hand, given that gunpowder effectively makes martial training a lot less effective, give both sides firearms and Rome carry the day - with gunpowder's japan having the best individual fighters become rather irrelevant, and Rome having the superior military machine gives them the decisive edge.
Surprising as it may seem, I agree with a good deal presented (actual facts as opposed to nonsense spewed by those with an appernt grudge agiasnt the west dose that after all) and as such, while I still think that the Romans have an edge, I'll certianlly agree that any engagement would be a blood bath, though; the assumptions run rampant in this thread, by myself and others is proficenct;
A)I'll conceed that the equipment of the samurai was better, but I'll never be convinced that trainign froma young age leads to the superiorty of troops; for the simple reason that there have been plenty of examples of where a bunch of guys who joined an army in thier early to mid twenties tranined up, and utterlyl schooled people whom had trained thier entire life for the fight; although I'll conceed that I'm mostlyl familliar with ancient battles that illustrate the point, and almost all of it is cnetered on examp,es in the western world of those not limited ot the ancient era, I'm more then willign to bet examples exist in the east as well that illustrate the point
B)as far as individual weaponry goes, the samurai loose, fo rthe simpel facat that having a large group of people all with tier own weapony dosent lend itself well to battles in which, by the nature of the opponet (the romans in this case), one must fight in pattern and formation, where individual differences in arms and armour become a liabitity, rather then a stregth, hence the reason why formations based armies gained so much domiance int he first place, where every man is either equipped exactley the same, or so similer, the diffences a negligible, and cease to be a factor
C)the quetion fo roman loyalty and of samurai loyalty is a non-question; Japanese culture woudl inspire them to fight, as would Roman culture, and the sheer fear fo what would happen if they were ot be cowards on the battle feild; after all, howmany retreats do we hear about in Roman history? The same question goes for the history of japan, for in both cases, i think thier are few.
D)as a pojtm fo clarity, the Romans didnt "chop", unless it was neededto act as a parry for the enemy weapons; Roman drill is quite clear that while a cut can miam, it is the thrust that kills, at least with the arms of Rome; however, it should be noted that they too were hardley limited to the gladius; from an assortmetn fo differnt types of pilums, of differet weights and what not, so the general, afte rhaving recieved infomation on what the enemy carried, could make a proper choice on what woudl be the optimum range for a pilum throw, to assroted types of spears (pikes were credited to what gave Ceasar victory over pompet, who had a superior number of cavalry) and of course, the good old Roman innovations on the battle feild (such as armouring the Legionary into a form that that, in addition to the standard armour,m added grieves, usually reserved for Centurions, as well as arm-armour, styled from what Galdiators wore to protect the arms and shoulders, and ofcourse added re-inforcment all over in terms of armor); that leeds me to speculate that, if it was a full campaign that was beign waged agiasnt japanese forces, that even if a first engagement had went in the japanese favor,t hat the res tof the campaign would sternlly go to the Romans in victory
A)I'll conceed that the equipment of the samurai was better, but I'll never be convinced that trainign froma young age leads to the superiorty of troops; for the simple reason that there have been plenty of examples of where a bunch of guys who joined an army in thier early to mid twenties tranined up, and utterlyl schooled people whom had trained thier entire life for the fight; although I'll conceed that I'm mostlyl familliar with ancient battles that illustrate the point, and almost all of it is cnetered on examp,es in the western world of those not limited ot the ancient era, I'm more then willign to bet examples exist in the east as well that illustrate the point
B)as far as individual weaponry goes, the samurai loose, fo rthe simpel facat that having a large group of people all with tier own weapony dosent lend itself well to battles in which, by the nature of the opponet (the romans in this case), one must fight in pattern and formation, where individual differences in arms and armour become a liabitity, rather then a stregth, hence the reason why formations based armies gained so much domiance int he first place, where every man is either equipped exactley the same, or so similer, the diffences a negligible, and cease to be a factor
C)the quetion fo roman loyalty and of samurai loyalty is a non-question; Japanese culture woudl inspire them to fight, as would Roman culture, and the sheer fear fo what would happen if they were ot be cowards on the battle feild; after all, howmany retreats do we hear about in Roman history? The same question goes for the history of japan, for in both cases, i think thier are few.
D)as a pojtm fo clarity, the Romans didnt "chop", unless it was neededto act as a parry for the enemy weapons; Roman drill is quite clear that while a cut can miam, it is the thrust that kills, at least with the arms of Rome; however, it should be noted that they too were hardley limited to the gladius; from an assortmetn fo differnt types of pilums, of differet weights and what not, so the general, afte rhaving recieved infomation on what the enemy carried, could make a proper choice on what woudl be the optimum range for a pilum throw, to assroted types of spears (pikes were credited to what gave Ceasar victory over pompet, who had a superior number of cavalry) and of course, the good old Roman innovations on the battle feild (such as armouring the Legionary into a form that that, in addition to the standard armour,m added grieves, usually reserved for Centurions, as well as arm-armour, styled from what Galdiators wore to protect the arms and shoulders, and ofcourse added re-inforcment all over in terms of armor); that leeds me to speculate that, if it was a full campaign that was beign waged agiasnt japanese forces, that even if a first engagement had went in the japanese favor,t hat the res tof the campaign would sternlly go to the Romans in victory
A comparison is inept, since the two groups are fr wildly different eras and technological levels.
Much like comparing the legions with early European muskety.
Much like comparing the legions with early European muskety.
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Awww XIII, it's just for fun :-D
Regarding point A and B you seems to make a terribly erroneous assumption - that the Japanese had no organization or strategy. Yes, the troops would have used separate weapons - but they WOULD Have formed in units along the line of who used what weapons best - expecting them to act in the warband strategy.
Japan might not have had AS MUCH organization as Rome, but they were very well organized. And as for strategy, let's not forget here that Sun Tzu's was very, very widespread in Japan, and that most if not all of the feudal warlord had a well-read copy.
Point C I agree with.
Point D, disagreed. Japanese would have adapted too - if nothing else, Japan has shown a remarkable capacity for swift adaptation of technologies and ideas when the time call for it - and a harsh war with a deadly enemy would call for it. Let it simply be said that anything Rome would have deployed that was superior to the Japanese equivalent, well, chances are the japanese soldiers would have their own version of it by the next battle.
Regarding point A and B you seems to make a terribly erroneous assumption - that the Japanese had no organization or strategy. Yes, the troops would have used separate weapons - but they WOULD Have formed in units along the line of who used what weapons best - expecting them to act in the warband strategy.
Japan might not have had AS MUCH organization as Rome, but they were very well organized. And as for strategy, let's not forget here that Sun Tzu's was very, very widespread in Japan, and that most if not all of the feudal warlord had a well-read copy.
Point C I agree with.
Point D, disagreed. Japanese would have adapted too - if nothing else, Japan has shown a remarkable capacity for swift adaptation of technologies and ideas when the time call for it - and a harsh war with a deadly enemy would call for it. Let it simply be said that anything Rome would have deployed that was superior to the Japanese equivalent, well, chances are the japanese soldiers would have their own version of it by the next battle.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
I'd say samauris have a slight edge, though I agree that this is comparing two wildy different tech eras.
I've never been a fan of sun-tzu; not because, as most migth think because I tend to permeate a opinion of haughtyness for the west, but rather, that it's over-rated as a "military" work; it has smacked to me as being more akin to a guide of why to wage war, then actually how to wage war, and the descriptiones it dose give of what to do are so broad as to be uslesss unless the person reading had some compitency in military matters to begin with.
that said, i bever said that the japanese wouldnt be orginized, did I? You assume that i thought as such, when in reality, I've cracked out a few books to try to get a better understanding of it all; but my side is still with the Romans; for the same reasons; it dosent matter if indivdual units carry the same weapons, its just good order to have an entire front of troops carrying the same stuff, to present a uniform front the enemy, so that every part can fight in cohesion, and present the same leval of resistence; why is that so important? because time and time agian, a wise commender will exploit any weak point in an aenemy line by diverting more troops to that area; further exposing that area of weakness to more troops, and troops likelyl to be trianed in tryign to exploit that weakness; when fighting in the pre-gunpowder (and lets face, it early gun-powder era as well), "chopping" your ranks and having them fight with assorted weapons and styles only gives the enemy a chance to see what works best agiasnt what, and if a weak point is found, then they can take advatage of it; where as if the japanese were ot have any single weapon effective agiasnt the legions, its assured not to be in large enough supply as to tip the battle o farin thier favor; while, obviouslly, if the Romans found that they had a particuler advatage agiasnt a section of a japanese line, thier troops, armed in a manner that has the edge agiast the section, could fully exploit it, and that alone could lead to a break in the japanese line, and, possibly, to a general rout.
that said, i bever said that the japanese wouldnt be orginized, did I? You assume that i thought as such, when in reality, I've cracked out a few books to try to get a better understanding of it all; but my side is still with the Romans; for the same reasons; it dosent matter if indivdual units carry the same weapons, its just good order to have an entire front of troops carrying the same stuff, to present a uniform front the enemy, so that every part can fight in cohesion, and present the same leval of resistence; why is that so important? because time and time agian, a wise commender will exploit any weak point in an aenemy line by diverting more troops to that area; further exposing that area of weakness to more troops, and troops likelyl to be trianed in tryign to exploit that weakness; when fighting in the pre-gunpowder (and lets face, it early gun-powder era as well), "chopping" your ranks and having them fight with assorted weapons and styles only gives the enemy a chance to see what works best agiasnt what, and if a weak point is found, then they can take advatage of it; where as if the japanese were ot have any single weapon effective agiasnt the legions, its assured not to be in large enough supply as to tip the battle o farin thier favor; while, obviouslly, if the Romans found that they had a particuler advatage agiasnt a section of a japanese line, thier troops, armed in a manner that has the edge agiast the section, could fully exploit it, and that alone could lead to a break in the japanese line, and, possibly, to a general rout.
North King
blech
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2004
- Messages
- 18,165
Xen said:
You make a point. Sun Tzu deals much more with overall strategems and quite a bit on "subduing the enemy without fighting".
Evie
Pronounced like Eevee
Xen - so by your argument there is something wrong with fielding an army that is not made entirely of the same type of troops?
Excuse me, but if so, why did the romans insist on having their auxilia? Why have all armies from the dawn of time to today maintained various type of forces? Oh, that's right! Because not all kind of forces are equally adapted to every situation!
So I ask you : how would japan having archers as well as spearmen, swordsmen and cavalry in their overall forces be anything that might make them WEAK?
As for the Art of War, it was never a treatise on how to win battle, so if you read it expecting to be told how to win individual battle, it's obvious you didn't get what you were looking for in it.
It's a treatise on strategy - how to wage war, not how to fight a battle. And as such, it teaches all the important points. Does it put forward individual tactics?
No, because that's useless - tactics are ENTIRELY too dependant on the field, the type of weapons, the enemy army you face for any guide to "teach" anyone tactics in a lasting fashion.
But strategy is somethign that changes a lot less than tactics, and Sun Tzu's is an outstanding take on strategies and how to fight overall WARS.
Excuse me, but if so, why did the romans insist on having their auxilia? Why have all armies from the dawn of time to today maintained various type of forces? Oh, that's right! Because not all kind of forces are equally adapted to every situation!
So I ask you : how would japan having archers as well as spearmen, swordsmen and cavalry in their overall forces be anything that might make them WEAK?
As for the Art of War, it was never a treatise on how to win battle, so if you read it expecting to be told how to win individual battle, it's obvious you didn't get what you were looking for in it.
It's a treatise on strategy - how to wage war, not how to fight a battle. And as such, it teaches all the important points. Does it put forward individual tactics?
No, because that's useless - tactics are ENTIRELY too dependant on the field, the type of weapons, the enemy army you face for any guide to "teach" anyone tactics in a lasting fashion.
But strategy is somethign that changes a lot less than tactics, and Sun Tzu's is an outstanding take on strategies and how to fight overall WARS.
A)You mis understand me completlly; never did I say that it was bad to have multiple componets of an army; but you seems to have insinuated that they all would have been part of a single battle line; that is where the mistake was; Rome used many different troops on the battle feild; but they were all in formations indipendent of one another, with soem notable exception for archer/H. Infantry placement.
B)tactis too dependent on the battle feild? that sthe biges tload of crap I've heard on the subject this week; read soem of the military treatises by the Byzantines, whom tacticle guides served the empire for at least 600 years; they go a far step further then mere stratgey, by describing what are good tactics for certian opponents, using tried and tested experince of commanders to gain an over all understanding fo what schools fo thought the enemy of any particuler enemy nation woudl be thinking in thier war effort; I have not yet read vegetus or tactitus I'm regretful to say, but I have the feelign I can expect similer detials in thier work; all of this leading to chronicled in books the expertise to fight common eenmies, as well as those never, or rarelly encounterd before; though as history shows, much was still left to the commander on th ebattle feild, such tacticle guides certianlyl gave a head start in it.
Moderator Action: Watch your language. I'll tolerate no 'biggest load of crap' type language in this forum. - XIII
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
C)"Excuse me, but if so, why did the romans insist on having their auxilia? Why have all armies from the dawn of time to today maintained various type of forces? Oh, that's right! Because not all kind of forces are equally adapted to every situation!"
perhaps you are forgetting that two types of armies conqoured the roman world, one type held it together (and upon the fall of the latter, and the adoption fo other types, it fell); I speak of the Republican, and Early Imperial legions; troosp that were the primary troops of the empire, of some little city state that some how devised for itself a trooper that was equally at home in the diverse terrians from the highlands of scotland to the deserts of northern sudan; AUxilla had thier role fo course, and they coudl be an important tool on the battl efeild; but they were of secondary importance to that of legiosn themselves, comparitivlly at least.
B)tactis too dependent on the battle feild? that sthe biges tload of crap I've heard on the subject this week; read soem of the military treatises by the Byzantines, whom tacticle guides served the empire for at least 600 years; they go a far step further then mere stratgey, by describing what are good tactics for certian opponents, using tried and tested experince of commanders to gain an over all understanding fo what schools fo thought the enemy of any particuler enemy nation woudl be thinking in thier war effort; I have not yet read vegetus or tactitus I'm regretful to say, but I have the feelign I can expect similer detials in thier work; all of this leading to chronicled in books the expertise to fight common eenmies, as well as those never, or rarelly encounterd before; though as history shows, much was still left to the commander on th ebattle feild, such tacticle guides certianlyl gave a head start in it.
Moderator Action: Watch your language. I'll tolerate no 'biggest load of crap' type language in this forum. - XIII
Please read the forum rules: http://forums.civfanatics.com/showthread.php?t=422889
C)"Excuse me, but if so, why did the romans insist on having their auxilia? Why have all armies from the dawn of time to today maintained various type of forces? Oh, that's right! Because not all kind of forces are equally adapted to every situation!"
perhaps you are forgetting that two types of armies conqoured the roman world, one type held it together (and upon the fall of the latter, and the adoption fo other types, it fell); I speak of the Republican, and Early Imperial legions; troosp that were the primary troops of the empire, of some little city state that some how devised for itself a trooper that was equally at home in the diverse terrians from the highlands of scotland to the deserts of northern sudan; AUxilla had thier role fo course, and they coudl be an important tool on the battl efeild; but they were of secondary importance to that of legiosn themselves, comparitivlly at least.
storealex said:
proove it.
Only PRE-Augustan reformed legions had any incident with any cavalry; while, remarkbley when cosidering your obviouslly well backed up and reasoned conclusion on the matter, post austian reformed troops; of which had reahced thier height by the time of Trajan, not only bowled over enemy cavalry of assorted types; but did it so well as to force the Parthians, the very epitomy of cavalry tactics in the west, out of Mesopotamia all together!
I'd say the Roman Legions would have a much better chance of defeating any Japanese Samurais. The Romans' turtle formation would totally confuse the Japanese, although it would probably arouse their appetite for some weird dish (raw turtles). Anyway, even if the Japanese did have a stronger cavalry due more to inventions than anything else, the Roman formations were devised in such a way to where cavalry would have the most difficult time trying to penetrate the Roman lines. I have a question, did the Romans use any unit similar to the Greek hoplite with those long spears/poles? I think Roman infantry if deployed in battle without any formation would be useless against the samurai, seeing as the Japanese used much longer swords than the Roman 'short swords'.
There is no need for patronizing, Xen. Especially not when you're wrong.
If the Roman army had throughout most of the third and fourth century been undergoing a transition, gradually increasing the number of cavalry, then the end of this period of gradual change was brought about by a dreadful disaster.
In AD 378 the Gothic cavalry annihilated the eastern army under emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople (Hadrianopolis).
The point had been proven that heavy cavalry could defeat heavy infantry in battle.
Emperor Theodosius, the immediate successor of Valens, appreciated that after the disaster at the battle of Adrianople drastic changes were necessary.
Not only had the eastern army been wiped out, but the Roman reliance on infantry was now outdated.
After achieving peace with the Goths, he began to enlist every German warlord he could bribe into his services. These Germans with their horsemen were not part of the regular army, but were federates (foederati) for whose services the emperor paid them a fee, the so-called annonae foederaticae.Only six years after the Battle of Adrianople there was already 40'000 German horsemen serving under their chiefs in the army of the east. The Roman army had changed forever. So too had the balance of power in the empire itself.
If the west at first did not adapt the same method as the east, then it soon learnt its own lesson, when emperor Theodosius a few years later met the the western usurper Magnus Maximus in battle in AD 387. The western legionaries, widely regarded as the best infantrymen of their day, were ridden down and crushed by Theodosius' heavy cavalry.
The lesson was not immediately learnt by the western empire and in AD 392 Arbogast and his puppet emperor Eugenius saw their infantry defeated by the Gothic horsemen of Theodosius.
If the Roman army had throughout most of the third and fourth century been undergoing a transition, gradually increasing the number of cavalry, then the end of this period of gradual change was brought about by a dreadful disaster.
In AD 378 the Gothic cavalry annihilated the eastern army under emperor Valens at the Battle of Adrianople (Hadrianopolis).
The point had been proven that heavy cavalry could defeat heavy infantry in battle.
Emperor Theodosius, the immediate successor of Valens, appreciated that after the disaster at the battle of Adrianople drastic changes were necessary.
Not only had the eastern army been wiped out, but the Roman reliance on infantry was now outdated.
After achieving peace with the Goths, he began to enlist every German warlord he could bribe into his services. These Germans with their horsemen were not part of the regular army, but were federates (foederati) for whose services the emperor paid them a fee, the so-called annonae foederaticae.Only six years after the Battle of Adrianople there was already 40'000 German horsemen serving under their chiefs in the army of the east. The Roman army had changed forever. So too had the balance of power in the empire itself.
If the west at first did not adapt the same method as the east, then it soon learnt its own lesson, when emperor Theodosius a few years later met the the western usurper Magnus Maximus in battle in AD 387. The western legionaries, widely regarded as the best infantrymen of their day, were ridden down and crushed by Theodosius' heavy cavalry.
The lesson was not immediately learnt by the western empire and in AD 392 Arbogast and his puppet emperor Eugenius saw their infantry defeated by the Gothic horsemen of Theodosius.
READ THE FIRST POST!
it specificlly states that the troops in question are from trajans era; not the piss poor troopers from the 400's, buthe crack troops of the 100's; there is a world of difference between the two, one that you seem to have missed in your haste.
it specificlly states that the troops in question are from trajans era; not the piss poor troopers from the 400's, buthe crack troops of the 100's; there is a world of difference between the two, one that you seem to have missed in your haste.
Similar threads
